The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act for matters related to land subject to consolidation, unless fraud is proven, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the contesting private respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders passed by the revenue courts under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity 'Act, 1950') whereby suit filed on his behalf for declaration of his rights and title under Section 229-B of Act, 1950 has concurrently been discarded by all the three revenue courts on the point of maintainability of suit being barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') while deciding the issue no.7 framed by the learned trial court.

3. As per plaint case, the plaintiff-petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of mortgage deed dated 27.2.1901, registered on 04.3.1901, said to have been executed by Khuman Singh s/o Preetam Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-respondants) in favour of Radha Kishan s/o Bhola Nath (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-petitioner). Through the aforesaid mortgage deed, the land in question was mortgaged for thirty years against the loan amounting to Rs.290/-. Mortgage money was paid from the Hindu Undivided Family Fund. Subsequently, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner had filed a suit for possession against Khuman Singh (father of defendant no.1) being Civil Suit No. 418 of 1911 (Pitambar Lal & Others vs. Khuman Singh & Others). Aforesaid suit was decreed on 24.2.1912 and based on the said decree, possession was delivered on 29.3.1912. Since 1348 fasli, name of Smt. Ram Dulari (grand-mother of the plaintiff-petitioner) was recorded and thereafter name of the plaintiff- petitioner is recorded in Khatauni being mortgagee. The plaintiff-petitioner was initially Seerdar of the property in question. Subsequently, by operation of law, became Bhumidhar with transferable rights. On the advent of consolidation operation, he has executed a power of attorney in favour of Nanhu Singh (brother of defendant no.2 namely Rajendra) to look after the property and get the name of the plaintiff-petitioner in the consolidation record, however, he did nothing and got the name of the plaintiff-petitioner expunged from the record. By playing fraud on the plaintiff-petitioner, he got his name and defendants' name recorded in the consolidation record. Thus, name of defendants are fraudulently and illegally recorded in the revenue record which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner for the first time on 27.1.1987 and, consequently, he filed suit for declaration.

4. On the contrary, defendants have filed written statement denying the pleadings made in the plaint with the contention that mortgage deed dated 27.2.1901, registered on 4.3.1901, was redeemed by judgment dated 29.2.1936 and decree dated 3.3.1946 passed by the Assistant Collector (Ist Class) in a Suit No.4/5. Nanhu Singh was never appointed as power of attorney by the plaintiff-petitioner to look after the property in question. The plaintiff-petitioner does not belong to the family of the original mortgagee and he is never recorded in the revenue record, therefore, suit on his behalf is not maintainable being barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

5. Learned trial court, after exchange of pleadings, has framed as many as ten issues to decide the suit. Out of them, issue no.7 was framed regarding bar of suit under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act which